Current Affairs Security

UK Quietly Rethinks Its Seven-Year Prediction Market Ban as Users Simply Bypass It Anyway

2026-09-08

The UK's Financial Conduct Authority is having second thoughts. In early September, The Times reported that the FCA has been chatting with trading platforms about easing its ban on prediction markets for retail investors—a rule that's sat in place since April 2019. No formal policy shift yet. No consultation paper. No rewritten rules. But the fact that regulators are even talking to platforms? That's the signal that something previously settled is coming unstuck.

Back in 2019, the FCA swung the hammer. Christopher Woolard, the regulator's executive director at the time, was blunt about it: offshore binary options brokers were just "gambling products dressed up as financial instruments." Consumers were getting hammered. The ban existed to protect retail traders from inherently risky, structurally dodgy contracts. It made sense then.

The market, though. It's transformed entirely.

Platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket now sit at multi-billion-dollar valuations backed by mainstream financial firms and institutional money. Kalshi holds federal designation as a regulated contract market under the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Polymarket runs on the Polygon blockchain. Yes-or-no contracts on financial events, elections, economic data—they technically fall under the binary options label, but they're a completely different animal from the offshore scams that triggered the 2019 prohibition.

Here's where it gets awkward for regulators: the ban doesn't actually work anymore. Industry representatives have shown the FCA evidence that millions of British consumers are already using these platforms. Many use virtual private networks to sidestep geographic blocks. When people circumvent a prohibition to access unregulated alternatives, the regulator loses the entire oversight it was supposedly protecting them with.

That's the paradox biting hard. By maintaining an absolute ban, the FCA actively drives consumers toward operators with zero domestic regulatory standards. Users on offshore platforms don't get UK complaint procedures, the Financial Ombudsman Service, or Financial Services Compensation Scheme coverage. The consumer safeguarding the ban was designed to ensure? It vanishes precisely when the prohibition is most strictly enforced.

If the FCA does reverse course, complications follow. Any UK platform would face dual regulation. Financial contracts tied to economic data or weather events need FCA permission. Sports and political outcome contracts fall under Gambling Commission jurisdiction and require a separate gambling license. This split framework has already confused major platforms considering UK entry.

The sector's growing fast. Bernstein Research projected prediction market trading volume could hit $240 billion in 2026, up from roughly $51 billion the year before. Kalshi and Polymarket valued at $22 billion and $21 billion respectively. Coinbase, Robinhood, DraftKings—all rolling out their own prediction products.

A UK reversal would create the same regulatory patchwork platforms already navigate in the US. Last week, New Jersey petitioned the Supreme Court to hear a case against Kalshi over sporting event contracts. Federal-versus-state tensions remain unresolved. UK regulators could end up replicating those same tensions between domestic oversight and rules designed for a global market.

The FCA's talks are still exploratory. Industry's making the economic and consumer protection case for change. No timeline exists for formal rulemaking. The permanent ban from 2019 remains law until officially rewritten. What's shifting is the question underneath: whether prohibition itself has become the thing harming the very people it was meant to protect.

Source & further reading:

Sources